On 11/06/2013 17:54, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:15:25 +0100
Martin <laza...@mfriebe.de> wrote:
On 11/06/2013 17:05, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:56:20 +0100
Martin <laza...@mfriebe.de> wrote:
[...]
A broader column means less space
for the modes and options. The abbreviations IDE,LPI and LPS are not as
clear as a sentence. It's not one grid, there are three, so some
disruption is needed.
At the moment the grid usus a lot more vertical than horizontal space.
Yes, the design maximizes the space for the value to avoid horizontal
scrolling.
IMHO the risk of horizontal scrolling is far less a problem, than the
disruption caused to the grid, by the additional vertical spacing.
What is the "risk of disruption"?
sorry not "risk" since it actually is presence.
The disruptions of the grid by the rows inserted for the sections (that
is what the whole discussion is about)
It also exist by the rows inserted for "targets" but there I can see a
point in it, and the cost/benefit is slightly better....
But accepting it for the targets does not mean that it needs to be there
for the storage sections too.
This is a question of visual representation only. This is not about
changing any of the functionality.
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
